http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-24/paul-craig-roberts-warns-armageddon-approaches-after-german-leak (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-24/paul-craig-roberts-warns-armageddon-approaches-after-german-leak)
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/09/germany-preparing-for-war-against-russia.html (http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/09/germany-preparing-for-war-against-russia.html)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37155060 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37155060)
http://www.thelocal.de/20160821/germany-to-chart-first-civil-defence-plan-since-cold-war-report (http://www.thelocal.de/20160821/germany-to-chart-first-civil-defence-plan-since-cold-war-report)
Is this just electioneering or is there any real merit to this?
Was reading a wile back that Russia is still prepared for an all out land war and could mobilise extremely quickly.
Whats more, their tanks vastly outnumber NATOs and their mobile air defences are the best in the world, which would give them cover from superior airforces and missles.
With Putin at the helm they could move on Ukraine if they thought it would benefit them, and after that who knows.
If you ask me Germany would be very silly to rely solely on NATO for their soverign defence, as from the current military situation Russia could have them overrun before NATO said booo.
Russia doesn't have the military capability to project power more than a few hundred miles past it's borders. IMO all the scaremongering about a Russian threat is NATO propaganda attempting to make itself relevant in client states in order to justify it's continued existence/funding.
You want to believe that Ulick (I do to) but its very far from the case a bit of honest researach on the internet and you will find its very far from the case
So how far is Syria from Russia? Interestingly I seen a theory floated that the real reason Russia is in there was to capture some of the American hardware that ISIS acquired from the Iraqis (2 Abrams tanks in particular I think) so that they could try out their new tank against it.
Russia might not have a deep water Navy required to Globally mobilise their military, but In a land war while not as trained or advanced technologically as NATO they can mobilse much faster and have far greater numbers. The former in particular is at their benefit. IF a war started tomorrow realistically Russia could sweep across Europe in a few months with only the sovereign military of France or Italy capable of giving them significant resistance.
NATO would be scrambling. Since the cold war ended NATO has been used as a global hard diplomatic tool and its land defensive capabilities have been diminished greatly.
They also have nuclear warheads mounted on IC ballistic missiles (stationary and mobile), subs, and long range bombers. They are a serious force and dismissing them as such is only playing into their hands.
Of course Political and economic checks prevent a war at the moment but those things are becoming increasingly unstable.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37164960 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37164960)
Germany considers return of conscription for civil defence
Germany may reintroduce a form of national service for civilians to help the army deal with a future disaster.
The role of civilians is part of a new civil defence strategy to be discussed by the government on Wednesday.
Since the strategy was leaked to the media there has been intense debate about stockpiling food and water.
In a crisis civilians might be obliged to help direct traffic or provide fuel and accommodation for the military, German news agency DPA reported.
Germans appeared generally unfazed by what some MPs have called government "scaremongering" but the word "Wehrpflicht" (conscription) was trending on social media on Tuesday.
Some black haired lad in Germany not use the same scare mongering tactics 80 odd years ago, he went far, bringing millions of people down with him
Syria is so far from Russia, they have to borrow two airbases from the Iranians and Syrians as well as the compliance of Turkey to keep their naval base at Tartus adequately supplied. Don't get me wrong what Russia did with 24 aircraft in Syria will be studied in military history for decades. They flew more missions than the whole NATO forces combined, but that kind of intensity isn't sustainable. NATO outguns them with hardware and infrastructure exponentially. Russia simply cannot fight an overseas ground war especially against the like of NATO. If they could there'd be no need to be deploying the S400s into Kaliningrad and along it's borders. The Russians are spooked by all this NATO activity in Europe and they fear not being able to defend against a NATO first strike.
Every country that doesnt have a operating aircraft carrier needs to stop off in other countries bases. Shit even the Americans who have 5 or 6 still stop off in Shannon.
Firstly lets get a few things straight
I am not saying that Russia does not fear a first strike, they do.
I am not saying that Russia is significantly less well equipped to deliver a first strike, they arent. Although probably because of this they are significantly better able to defend one.
I already mentioned that Russia can't fight a war overseas without a deep water navy. But Germany or Europe arent over seas they are on their doorstep
The S400s you mentioned can take out any aircraft or missile that NATO (or anyone else) has, which giving cover to a full on ground assault scenario would render NATOs vastly superior air power completely useless against it. The only method to repel an assault of this type is with tanks and troops, which NATO simply does not have in large enough numbers in the right areas to repel. By the way I did a bit of up to-date research and it does look like America is bolstering forces in the Baltics, and I also misjudged Germany's tank numbers they have increased quite a lot and their MBT is very highly regarded so they probably could give the Russians a bit of bother. However they are a drop in the ocean compared to what Russia has. I still suspect they could not contain the Russian divisions for for long enough for the full American deployment to come in time to save them. Then again a new front could be opened up fairly quickly on southern Russia via Turkey which would probably be NATOs best method of stalling a main Russian assault across Europe before they could get their arses in gear.
How this would all play out politically who knows, you would think Russia would be more stable in this scenario as the people have a bigger stomach for war and no pesky democracy to get in the way either. Still tho... in a longer conflict NATO should be able to turn the tide, but for the first few months Russia could wreak havoc in Eastern and Central Europe, so Russian goals would have to be achieved relatively quickly and then go about looking a peace treaty.
To answer the original question its just electioneering.
The vast majority of Russian tanks are Soviet era T-90s which are no match for the American Abrams isle even the German Leopard. Any that were deployed in Syrian were easily picked off by the jihadis. They do however currently have what is recognised as the world's best and most advanced tank, the T-14 Armata, complete with active armour which protects against direct strikes from guided anti-tank missiles. A handful of these have managed to make big advances for the Syrian government, however it is so new the Russians have less than 50 in use at the moment. In terms of aircraft carriers, the Russians only have one Soviet era ship which could be described as a carrier with about 30 aircraft, the US alone had 10 modern Nimitz class carriers each with about 80 aircraft and their own support fleets. Also as you rightly say, Russia is completely surrounded by NATO bases, starting a war on one border would immediately leave them vulnerable to attack on at least two other sides.
The Russians are no threat to world peace but they are strong enough not to be pushed around by the Yanks and so are in a good position to ensure the US doesn't continue to bring wrecks and ruin to the rest of the world. IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII.
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 23, 2016, 04:09:57 PM
You want to believe that Ulick (I do to) but its very far from the case a bit of honest researach on the internet and you will find its very far from the case
So how far is Syria from Russia? Interestingly I seen a theory floated that the real reason Russia is in there was to capture some of the American hardware that ISIS acquired from the Iraqis (2 Abrams tanks in particular I think) so that they could try out their new tank against it.
Russia might not have a deep water Navy required to Globally mobilise their military, but In a land war while not as trained or advanced technologically as NATO they can mobilse much faster and have far greater numbers. The former in particular is at their benefit. IF a war started tomorrow realistically Russia could sweep across Europe in a few months with only the sovereign military of France or Italy capable of giving them significant resistance.
NATO would be scrambling. Since the cold war ended NATO has been used as a global hard diplomatic tool and its land defensive capabilities have been diminished greatly.
They also have nuclear warheads mounted on IC ballistic missiles (stationary and mobile), subs, and long range bombers. They are a serious force and dismissing them as such is only playing into their hands.
Of course Political and economic checks prevent a war at the moment but those things are becoming increasingly unstable.
Jesus wept - lets hope you are never in a position of power!
Quote from: Ulick on August 24, 2016, 07:46:23 AM
The vast majority of Russian tanks are Soviet era T-90s which are no match for the American Abrams isle even the German Leopard. Any that were deployed in Syrian were easily picked off by the jihadis. They do however currently have what is recognised as the world's best and most advanced tank, the T-14 Armata, complete with active armour which protects against direct strikes from guided anti-tank missiles. A handful of these have managed to make big advances for the Syrian government, however it is so new the Russians have less than 50 in use at the moment. In terms of aircraft carriers, the Russians only have one Soviet era ship which could be described as a carrier with about 30 aircraft, the US alone had 10 modern Nimitz class carriers each with about 80 aircraft and their own support fleets. Also as you rightly say, Russia is completely surrounded by NATO bases, starting a war on one border would immediately leave them vulnerable to attack on at least two other sides.
The Russians are no threat to world peace but they are strong enough not to be pushed around by the Yanks and so are in a good position to ensure the US doesn't continue to bring wrecks and ruin to the rest of the world. IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII.
Why? Not being a smart ass, just genuinely curious.
Trump may be a nut-job but he is essentially an isolationist who believes in "America first" before forming alliances and intervening in other countries. Clinton on the other hand is an ideologically driven neoliberal interventionist who wants to bring American corporate values to all corners of the globe, whether they want it or not. Destabilising other nations, "preemptive" wars and "intervention" are all fair enough to her if they fit her perception of what is for the greater good. The current situation in Libya, Syria, Iraq and arguably Ukraine can be laid at her door and I don't see any reason why the pattern won't continue only with even higher stakes. Saunders was the best hope for the US, failing that, they're either f**ked domestically (if Trump gets in) or the rest of us are f**ked if Clinton gets in.
Quote from: Ulick on August 24, 2016, 09:49:13 AM
Trump may be a nut-job but he is essentially an isolationist who believes in "America first" before forming alliances and intervening in other countries. Clinton on the other hand is an ideologically driven neoliberal interventionist who wants to bring American corporate values to all corners of the globe, whether they want it or not. Destabilising other nations, "preemptive" wars and "intervention" are all fair enough to her if they fit her perception of what is for the greater good. The current situation in Libya, Syria, Iraq and arguably Ukraine can be laid at her door and I don't see any reason why the pattern won't continue only with even higher stakes. Saunders was the best hope for the US, failing that, they're either f**ked domestically (if Trump gets in) or the rest of us are f**ked if Clinton gets in.
Iraq?????
Seriously?
Ukraine?? That is John McCain's baby, although it is fascinating to see Trump former campaign manager was on the other side. That can't be properly pinned on Obama, never mind Clinton. The Republicans are all over it.
The others emerged from the Spring tide, which kicked off with a lot more European influence than people with agendas would care to admit.
She was Secretary of State with responsibility for foreign policy during the period which saw the rise of ISIS and the transferring of weapons from Libya to them in Iraq. She was also Secretary of State in the period directly preceding the Maidan protests in which the (democratically elected) Yanukovych government was first destabilised and then overthrown. It's fairly widely accepted that Clinton and the Obama administration were laying the groundwork there for a few years previous to that and triggered the coup when Yanukovych backed out of the European Union deal. Her chief spokesperson Victoria Nuland was already a well known aggressive anti-Russian from her time as Dick Chaney's security advisor. Nuland was then made Assistant Secretary of State by Obama on Clinton's retirement and given responsibility carrying through with their Ukrainian 'policy'. Given the timescales involved it's pretty inconceivable she wasn't already working on Ukraine under Clinton. Maybe she wasn't, but as I said arguably both Nuland and Clinton's fingerprints are all over it.
Garbage.
ISIS is the same group that rose out of the insurgency that followed Iraq II in 2003. Dubya's planners put a premium on securing the oil fields, leaving Saddam's defeated army weapons stores unguarded thereby ensuring these lunatics were armed for years.
The first Islamic State was declared in 2006 two years before Obama. But the men behind it were around for years before that.
As for Ukraine, that has been bubbling away for years also. 'It is fairly accepted' by whom? Recent Ukraine events has been John McCain's gig and he certainly wasn't doing Obama's bidding. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause)
The corrupt triumvirate of Yanukovych, Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko were abusing and trading power long before Obama appeared. Some of the intrigue would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. For example, pro-Russia's Yankukovych's arrest of Tymoshenko for a gas deal with Russia. Trump's campaign manager's ties with Yankukovych.
But blaming Hillary for ISIS and Ukraine is moving into Stew territory. Did you know that the 'Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt organisation in history!' - no less. In history! There you go. Just because someone says it, without any back up of course, doesn't mean there is an element of truth in it.
I didn't say she was responsible for ISIS but oversaw the period when they were rearmed and rose to prominence largely with the help of weapons from US surrogates in Libya. Yanukovych's integrity in the debate is irrelevant, fact is he was democratically elected and subsequently overthrown by US sponsors. That Clinton approves of such tactics supports my assertion that she is an interventionist who sees nothing wrong with meddling in other countries and to hell with the consequences. As I said she is going the main destabilising factor in international geopolitics over the next decade, if she gets in.
Can you give any proof that she intervened in Ukraine?
Removing Gaddifi in Libya was Sarkozy and Cameron's ego trip gone horribly wrong. But you blame Hilary.
Removing Saddam in Iraq and the subsequent well-flagged instability (read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiasco_(book)) was the doing of Geroge W. Bush and in particularly his cronies, but you blame Hillary.
The revolving three headed dragon in Ukraine was revolving long before Hillary came to be an underling of Obama. And when the dragon's head revolved again, you blame Hillary.
I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels
As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.
Quote from: Ulick on August 24, 2016, 08:00:21 PM
I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels
As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.
Your article doesn't say what you think it does. ;D You should read it.
As for Republicans and Democrats, I see one as right wing and the other as ultra-right wing. But as for a 'fag papers worth of difference', there is at least one very significant difference. The last two Republican Presidents invaded countries for oil, while the last two Democrat Presidents didn't. Over 100,000 dead is the difference, which you might call 'even a fag papers worth'.
Seriously lads what has Hilary Clinton got to do with this. Germany is preparing for a senario where current geopolitics and diplomacy break down.
Anyway to Ulicks earlier post..
Aircraft carriers are irrelevant to a land assault, what role could they play where Russia's air defences would make air superiority pointless?
Even tho the T-90 is out of date it is still a formidable tank and while on a one one would not come out on top against most of the other modern MBTs their numerical superiority and ability to mobilise would put them on the front foot initially. Russian mechanised divisions outnumber NATO by 3 to 1 or something in Europe.
NATO does not surround Russia there is only two fronts Eastern Europe or the Causacus, and the latter would be difficult going for the Turks and would likely bring Iran into play as well. Any other front that NATO could open would only be part of a longer protracted conflict like Alaska/Siberia.
What has Hillary got to do with it?
This classic from Ulick: "IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII."
I can understand that Trump has his supporters, but must they imitate his lunacy?
Hillary will be about as big a threat to World Peace as her husband was. Which makes her equally the least dangerous likely President since before the Cold War.
So Ulick, what is your real problem with her?
I thought that it was so obvious a leap from nowhere and so irrelevant to the discussion that it wasn't even worth entertaining. But US politics is always good for a red herring if nothing else
Not to mention that her opponent advocates scaling back involvement to NATO which would leave Russia with an even stronger hand in Eastern Europe.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2016, 08:28:01 PM
Quote from: Ulick on August 24, 2016, 08:00:21 PM
I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels
As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.
Your article doesn't say what you think it does. ;D You should read it.
As for Republicans and Democrats, I see one as right wing and the other as ultra-right wing. But as for a 'fag papers worth of difference', there is at least one very significant difference. The last two Republican Presidents invaded countries for oil, while the last two Democrat Presidents didn't. Over 100,000 dead is the difference, which you might call 'even a fag papers worth'.
I'm sure the half million dead of Syria, Iraq and Libya are consoling themselves that they weren't invaded by the yanks.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2016, 09:35:59 PM
What has Hillary got to do with it?
This classic from Ulick: "IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII."
I can understand that Trump has his supporters, but must they imitate his lunacy?
Hillary will be about as big a threat to World Peace as her husband was. Which makes her equally the least dangerous likely President since before the Cold War.
So Ulick, what is your real problem with her?
Your defense of her is admirable. My problem with with her is obvious, she is a dangerous interventionist. That is obvious. It wasn't my intention to derail the discussion hence I preceded the comment with "IMO" and was then asked why. You then lowered the tone with your "garbage" opinion. If you can't be civil Muppet then there is no point engaging, I better things to be doing than wasting time with trolls.
Hillary is the greatest threat to world peace since WWII.
And I'm the troll! ;D
As for Syria, you insinuate (but don't say of course) that this war was Washinton's fault, by laying all of the deaths at their door, or at least that it is somehow equivalent to Iraq. Iraq you will remember was Dubya's response to 911 (which had nothing to do with Iraq) because they had WMDs) which they didn't and the UN told them they didn't. They invaded and occupied for a decade.
Syria is completely different. Yes the Yanks didn't invade. There were a whole kaleidoscope of influences there including Iran, Russia, Israel, Turkey, ISIS, the Spring Tide etc, etc.
But like Stew - you said it is all Hillary's fault. As was ISIS. And Iraq.
Yes, I'm the troll.
Is Clinton an interventionist?
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:14:11 PM
Is Clinton an interventionist?
You are an inventionist.
It's an easy question. Either she is or she isn't?
However it seems I'm not the only person with this view of Clinton. In a largely sympathetic NYT piece from earlier in the year there's a couple of stark quotes which for non-Yanks point to the nature of the woman even if the author doesn't intend it
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0)
"For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has."
"Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race."
"Just as Clinton benefited from her alliance with the military commanders, she gave them political cover."
"Thus might the general election present voters with an unfamiliar choice: a Democratic hawk versus a Republican reluctant warrior."
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Wow!
Worse than Cromwell.
Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Wow!
Worse than Cromwell.
Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.
So is she an interventionist or not?
Is interventionist a derogatory term? I assume it is the opposite of an isolationist. If those are the only two choices, then I'd prefer an interventionist as long as the interventionist operates like a peacekeeper.
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Wow!
Worse than Cromwell.
Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.
So is she an interventionist or not?
This is another of your logical fallacies.
First, the black or white question. Usually loaded, obviously without context or mitigating circumstances.
Then comes the false cause. 'Interventionist' will obviously have to equal evil war-mongerer and thus prove that she was responsible for all of the woes in Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Libya.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:59:40 PM
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Wow!
Worse than Cromwell.
Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.
So is she an interventionist or not?
This is another of your logical fallacies.
First, the black or white question. Usually loaded, obviously without context or mitigating circumstances.
Then comes the false cause. 'Interventionist' will obviously have to equal evil war-mongerer and thus prove that she was responsible for all of the woes in Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Libya.
Is she an interventionist or not?
You said she is a war mongerer responsible for Iraq, ISIS, Libya no Syria that and she is the biggest threat to world peace since WW II.
After all the above, this logical fallacy is the equivalent of now asking me if she has a sneaky smoke now and then.
The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton
by GARY LEUPP
Email
If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you'd think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects.
Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gadhafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gadhafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya.
But she wanted to topple Gadhafi. Over the objections of Secretary of "Defense" Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gadhafy was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the "international community" had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of "genocide" to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.)
No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gadhafy had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels.
The Pentagon doubted that Gadhafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of "light intelligence." Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gadhafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would "sanitize Libya one inch at a time" to "clear [the country] of these rats." (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was.
No, the attack was not about preventing a Rwanda-like genocide. Rather, it was launched because the Arab Spring, beginning with the overthrow of the two dictators, President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, had taken the west by surprise and presented it with a dilemma: to retain longstanding friendships (including that with Gadhafi, who'd been a partner since 2003) in the face of mass protests, or throw in its lot with the opposition movements, who seemed to be riding an inevitable historical trend, hoping to co-opt them?
Recall how Obama had declined up to the last minute to order Mubarak to step down, and how Vice President Joe Biden had pointedly declined to describe Mubarak as a dictator. Only when millions rallied against the regime did Obama shift gears, praise the youth of Egypt for their inspiring mass movement, and withdraw support for the dictatorship. After that Obama pontificated that Ali Saleh in Yemen (a key ally of the U.S. since 2001) had to step down in deference to protesters. Saleh complied, turning power to another U.S. lackey (who has since resigned). Obama also declared that Assad in Syria had "lost legitimacy," commanded him to step down, and began funding the "moderate" armed opposition in Syria. (The latter have at this point mostly disappeared or joined al-Qaeda and its spin-offs. Some have turned coat and created the "Loyalists' Army" backing Assad versus the Islamist crazies.)
Hillary, that supposedly astute stateswoman, believed that the Arab Spring was going to topple all the current dictators of the Middle East and that, given that, the U.S. needed to position itself as the friend of the opposition movements. Gadhafy was a goner, she reasoned, so shouldn't the U.S. help those working towards his overthrow?
Of course the U.S. (or the combination of the U.S. and NATO) couldn't just attack a sovereign state to impose regime change. It would, at any rate, have been politically damaging after the regime change in Iraq that had been justified on the basis of now well discredited lies. So the U.S. arm-twisted UNSC members to approve a mission to protect civilians in Libya against state violence. China and Russia declined to use their veto power (although as western duplicity and real motives became apparent, they came to regret this). The Libya campaign soon shifted from "peace-keeping" actions such as the imposition of a "no-fly" zone to overt acts of war against the Gadhafy regime, which for its part consistently insisted that the opposition was aligned with al-Qaeda.
The results of "Operation Unified Protector" have of course been absolutely disastrous. Just as the U,S. and some of its allies wrecked Iraq, producing a situation far worse than that under Saddam Hussein, so they have inflicted horrors on Libya unknown during the Gadhafi years. These include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups. The "humanitarian intervention" was in fact a grotesque farce and huge war crime.
But the political class and punditry in this country do not attack Hillary for war crimes, or for promoting lies to validate a war of aggression. Rather, they charge her and the State Department with failure to protect U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and other U.S. nationals from the attack that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And they fault her for promoting the State Department's initial "talking point" that the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film rather than a calculated terrorist attack. They pan her for sniping at a senator during a hearing, "What difference does it make (whether the attack had been launched by protestors spontaneously, or was a terrorist action planned by forces unleashed by the fall of the Gadhafi regime)"?
In other words: Hillary's mainstream critics are less concerned with the bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed over 1100 civilians, and produced the power vacuum exploited by murderous jihadis, than by Hillary's alleged concealment of evidence that might show the State Department inadequately protected U.S. diplomats from the consequences of the U.S.-orchestrated regime change itself. In their view, the former First Lady might have blood on her hands—but not that, mind you, of Libyan civilians, or Libyan military forces going about their normal business, or of Gadhafi who was sodomized with a knife while being murdered as Washington applauded.
No, she's held accountable for the blood of these glorified, decent upstanding Americans who'd been complicit in the ruin of Libya.
This version of events is easy to challenge. It's easy to show that Clinton skillfully—in full neocon mode, spewing disinformation to a clueless public—steered an attack on Libya that has produced enormous blowback and ongoing suffering for the Libyan people. If a right-wing paper like Washington Times can expose this, how much more the more "mainstream" press? Could they at least not raise for discussion whether what Rand Paul calls "Hillary's war" was, like the Iraq War (and many others) based on lies? Shouldn't Hillary be hammered with the facts of her history, and her vaunted "toughness" be exposed as callous indifference to human life?
* * *
While championing the rights of women and children, arguing that "it takes a village" to raise a child, Clinton has endorsed the bombing of villages throughout her public life. Here are some talking points for those appalled by the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
*She has always been a warmonger. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia—in Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. She's stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. "I urged him to bomb," she boasts. These Serbs were (as usual) forces that did not threaten the U.S. in any way. The complex conflicts and tussles over territory between ethnic groups in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Russian economy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, gave Bill Clinton an excuse to posture as the world's savior and to use NATO to impose order. Only the United States, he asserted, could restore order in Yugoslavia, which had been a proudly neutral country outside NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. President Clinton and Albright also claimed that only NATO—designed in 1949 to counter a supposed Soviet threat to Western Europe, but never yet deployed in battle—should deal with the Balkan crises.
The Bosnian intervention resulted in the imposition of the "Dayton Accord" on the parties involved and the creation of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Kosovo intervention five years later (justified by the scaremongering, subsequently disproven reports of a Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovars) involved the NATO bombing of Belgrade and resulted in the dismemberment of Serbia. Kosovo, now recognized by the U.S. and many of its allies as an independent state, is the center of Europe's heroin trafficking and the host of the U.S.'s largest army base abroad. The Kosovo war, lacking UN support and following Albright's outrageous demand for Serbian acquiescence—designed, as she gleefully conceded, "to set the bar too high" for Belgrade and Moscow's acceptance—of NATO occupation of all of Serbia, was an extraordinary provocation to Serbia's traditional ally Russia. "They need some bombing, and that's what they are going to get," Albright said at the time, as NATO prepared to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945.
*Clinton has been a keen advocate for the expansion of an antiquated Cold War military alliance that persists in provoking Russia. In the same year that NATO bombed Belgrade (1999), the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But Clinton's predecessor George H. W. Bush had promised Russia in 1989 that NATO would not expand eastward. And since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved in 1991, and since Russia under Boris Yeltsin hardly threatened any western countries, this expansion has understandably been viewed in Russia as a hostile move. George Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the USSR and a father of the "containment" doctrine, in 1998 pronounced the expansion a "tragic mistake" with "no reason whatsoever." But the expansion continued under George W. Bush and has continued under Obama. Russia is now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance from its borders with the Baltic states to the north to Romania and Bulgaria. U.S.-backed "color revolutions" have been designed to draw more countries into the NATO camp. Hillary as secretary of state was a big proponent of such expansion, and under her watch, two more countries (Albania and Croatia) joined the U.S.-dominated alliance.
(To understand what this means to Russia, imagine how Washington would respond to a Russia-centered "defensive" military alliance requiring its members to spend 2% of their GDPs on military spending and coordinate military plans with Moscow incorporating Canada and all the Caribbean countries, surrounding the continental U.S., and now moving to include Mexico. Would this not be a big deal for U.S. leaders?)
*As New York senator Clinton endorsed the murderous ongoing sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the UN in 1990 and continued until 2003. Initially applied to force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the sanctions were sustained at U.S. insistence (and over the protests of other Security Council members) up to and even beyond the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bill Clinton demanded their continuance, insisting that Saddam Hussein's (non-existent) secret WMD programs justified them. In 1996, three years into the Clinton presidency, Albright was asked whether the death of half a million Iraq children as a result of the sanctions was justified, and famously replied in a television interview, "We think it was worth it." Surely Hillary agreed with her friend and predecessor as the first woman secretary of state. She also endorsed the 1998 "Operation Desert Fox" (based on lies, most notably the charge that Iraq had expelled UN inspectors) designed to further destroy Iraq's military infrastructure and make future attacks even easier.
*She was a strident supporter of the Iraq War. As a New York senator from 2001 to 2009, Hillary aligned herself with the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, earning a reputation as a hawk. She was a fervent supportive of the attack on Iraq, based on lies, in 2003. On the floor of the Senate she echoed all the fictions about Saddam Hussein's "chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program." She declared, "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members." She suggested that her decision to support war was "influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation." (Presumably by the latter she meant the threats posed by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.) Her loss to Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008 was due largely to Obama's (supposed) antiwar position contrasting with her consistently pro-war position. She has only vaguely conceded that her support for the invasion was something of a mistake. But she blames her vote on others, echoing Dick Cheney's bland suggestion that the problem was "intelligence failures." "If we knew know then what we know now," she stated as she began her presidential campaign in late 2006, "I certainly wouldn't have voted" for the war.
*She actively pursued anti-democratic regime change in Ukraine. As secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton as noted above endorsed NATO's relentless expansion. She selected to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the neocon Victoria Nuland, who had been the principal deputy foreign advisor to Cheney when he was vice president. The wife of neocon pundit Robert Kagan, Nuland is a war hawk whose current mission in life is the full encirclement of Russia with the integration of Ukraine into the EU and then into NATO. The ultimate goal was the expulsion of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula (where it has been stationed since 1783). She has boasted of the fact that the U.S. has invested five billion dollars in supporting what she depicts as the Ukrainian people's "European aspirations." What this really means is that the U.S. exploited political divisions in Ukraine to topple an elected leader and replace him with Nuland's handpicked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyev, deploying neo-Nazi shock troops in the process and generating a civil war that has killed over 5000 people.
Clinton has increasingly vilified Vladimir Putin, the popular Russian president, absurdly comparing the Russian re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula following a popular referendum with Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland. She is totally on board the program of producing a new Cold War, and forcing European allies to cooperate in isolating the former superpower.
*She wanted to provide military assistance to the "moderate" armed opposition in Syria, to effect regime change, and after leaving office criticized Obama for not supplying more than he did. In 2011 Clinton wanted the U.S. to arm rebels who quickly became aligned with the al-Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) and other extreme Islamists, in order to bring down a secular regime that respects religious rights, rejects the implementation of Sharia law, and promotes the education of women. The U.S. indeed has supplied arms to anti-Assad forces from at least January 2014, But as it happens the bulk of U.S. aid to the "moderate rebels" has been appropriated by Islamists, and some of it is deployed against U.S. allies in Iraq. It is now widely understood that the bulk of "moderate" rebels are either in Turkish exile or directed by CIA agents, while the U.S. plans to train some 5000 new recruits in Jordan. Meanwhile Assad has won election (as fair as any held in a U.S. client state like Afghanistan or Iraq) and gained the upper hand in the civil war. U.S. meddling in Syria has empowered the Islamic State that now controls much of Syria and Iraq.
*She has been an unremitting supporter of Israeli aggression, whenever it occurs. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz described her last year as "Israel's new lawyer" given her sympathetic view of Binyamin Netanyahu's 2014 bombardment of Gaza and even his desire to maintain "security" throughout the occupied West Bank. She postured as an opponent of Israel's unrelenting, illegal settlements of Palestinian territory in 2009, but backed down when Netanyahu simply refused to heed U.S. calls for a freeze. In her memoir she notes "our early, hard line on settlements didn't work"—as though she's apologizing for it.
In 1999 as First Lady, Hillary Clinton hugged and kissed Yassir Arafat's wife Suha during a trip to the West Bank. She advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. She changed her tune when she ran for the New York Senate seat. When it comes to the Middle East, she is a total, unprincipled opportunist.
*Hillary tacitly endorsed the military coup against elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009, refusing to call it such (even though Obama did). She made common cause with those who feared his effort to poll the people about constitutional reform would weaken their positions, made nice with the ensuing regime and made sure Zelaya would not return to office.
*She provoked China by siding with Japan in the Senkaku/ Daioyutai dispute. Departing from the State Department's traditional stance that "we take no position" on the Sino-Japanese dispute about sovereignty over the Senkaku/ Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, seized by Japan in 1895, Clinton as secretary of state emphasized that the islands fall within the defense perimeters of the U.S.-Japanese alliance. The warmongering neocon National Review in a piece entitled "In Praise of Hillary Clinton" praised her for "driving the Chinese slightly up a wall."
*She helped bring down a Japanese prime minister who heeded the feelings of the people of Okinawa, who opposed the Futenma Marine Corps Air Force Station on the island. The new prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, whose Democratic Party of Japan defeated the slavishly pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party in the general election of 2009, had promised to move the hated U.S. base in the heart of Ginowan city for the noise, air pollution and public safety hazards it causes. Clinton met with him, listened sympathetically, and said "no." Hatoyama was obliged to apologize to the people of Okinawa, essentially conceding that Japan remains an occupied nation that doesn't enjoy sovereignty. Nationwide his public support ratings fell from 70 to 17% and he was obliged to resign in shame after eight months in office.
*She made countless trips to India, signing bilateral economic and nuclear cooperation agreements with a country her husband had placed under sanctions for its nuclear tests in 1998. While castigating North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, and taking what a CIA analyst called a "more hard line, more conditional, more neoconservative [approach] than Bush during the last four years of his term," she signaled that India's nukes were no longer an issue for the U.S. India is, after all, a counterweight to China.
What can those who revere her point to in this record that in any way betters the planet or this country? Clinton's record of her tenure in the State Department is entitled Hard Choices, but it has never been hard for Hillary to choose brute force in the service of U.S. imperialism and its controlling 1%.
This is a country of 323 million people. 88% of those over 25 have graduated high school. The world respects U.S. culture, science, and technology. Why is it that out of our well-educated, creative masses the best that the those who decide these things—the secretive cliques within the two official, indistinguishable political parties who answer to the 1% and who decide how to market electoral products—can come up with is the likely plate of candidates for the presidential election next year? Why is it that, while we all find it ridiculous that North Korea's ruled by its third Kim, Syria by its second Assad, and Cuba by its second Castro, the U.S. electorate may well be offered a choice between another Clinton and another Bush? As though their predecessors of those surnames were anything other than long-discredited warmongering thugs?
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 25, 2016, 01:57:30 PM
Is interventionist a derogatory term? I assume it is the opposite of an isolationist. If those are the only two choices, then I'd prefer an interventionist as long as the interventionist operates like a peacekeeper.
It depends whether you live in the country in question. 3.6 m Iraqi Sunnis have been exiled since the Yanks attacked.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 02:20:33 PM
You said she is a war mongerer responsible for Iraq, ISIS, Libya no Syria that and she is the biggest threat to world peace since WW II.
After all the above, this logical fallacy is the equivalent of now asking me if she has a sneaky smoke now and then.
So is she an interventionist or not?
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:59:40 PM
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Wow!
Worse than Cromwell.
Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.
So is she an interventionist or not?
This is another of your logical fallacies.
First, the black or white question. Usually loaded, obviously without context or mitigating circumstances.
Then comes the false cause. 'Interventionist' will obviously have to equal evil war-mongerer and thus prove that she was responsible for all of the woes in Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Libya.
Bit late for talking about his fallacies when you have given him plenty of incentive to indulge in them by facilitating the complete triumph of this Hillary Clinton red herring.
....I gave up lads, this is for the US Politics thread.
Hillary is a sociopath. So is yes we can.
OK to stop every thread turning into a bun fight can we agree a few ground rules to suit the noisy ones
1) Hillary is evil
2) Brendan Rodgers is a fraud
3) SF are to blame for everything
I miss anything?
Quote from: NAG1 on August 25, 2016, 03:44:16 PM
OK to stop every thread turning into a bun fight can we agree a few ground rules to suit the noisy ones
1) Hillary is evil
2) Brendan Rodgers is a fraud
3) SF are to blame for everything
I miss anything?
Yes.... what about Russia v NATO?
Quote from: NAG1 on August 25, 2016, 03:44:16 PM
OK to stop every thread turning into a bun fight can we agree a few ground rules to suit the noisy ones
1) Hillary is evil
2) Brendan Rodgers is a fraud
3) SF are to blame for everything
Brendan Rodgers is evil.
Hillary is to blame for everything.
SF are frauds.
Quote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 03:14:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 02:20:33 PM
You said she is a war mongerer responsible for Iraq, ISIS, Libya no Syria that and she is the biggest threat to world peace since WW II.
After all the above, this logical fallacy is the equivalent of now asking me if she has a sneaky smoke now and then.
So is she an interventionist or not?
Why would that matter in the slightest after stating (hello Godwin) she is the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler?
No idea, just curious as to why you're afraid to answer. So is she an interventionist or not?
Quote from: Ulick on August 26, 2016, 08:05:00 AM
No idea, just curious as to why you're afraid to answer. So is she an interventionist or not?
Ah I see what's happening here, between the logical fallacies and now this.
From the Ladybird book of negotiation:
"When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies."I could play from the same basic template and argue that I am not qualified to judge, etc., etc. But I haven't answered mainly because you are merely trying to deflect from your ludicrous and completely hysterical arguments. It just seems so silly to debate whether or not we can apply some faux intellectual tag to her, when we have a 'she is the biggest threat to world peace since WWII' on the table.
Regarding Hiallry as an interventionist, she is probably more so than Madeline Albright, but less so than Powell and Condi.
You weren't asked about Albright, Rice or Powell. Is Clinton an interventionist or not?
Quote from: Ulick on August 26, 2016, 12:07:32 PM
You weren't asked about Albright, Rice or Powell. Is Clinton an interventionist or not?
Asked and answered.
Since you think she is the greatest threat to world peace since WWII, it is hard to imagine why you need to so desperately try to tag her as an 'interventionist'.
I would give Hilary a maximum of 4 out of 10 as a Presidential candidate. One of the reasons is I simply hate political dynasties. Regardless of the merits of the individuals, it sends the wrong message completely, especially to other members of those dynasties. I feel the same way about re-electing the same government over and over and about very long term leadership of anything. See Pat Hickey for example. And of course Gerry Adams.
However I would refuse to mark Trump at all. I wouldn't put him in charge of an empty car park.
So since Americans have left us with only two possibly candidates, Hillary it is then for me.
Quote from: muppet on August 26, 2016, 12:20:48 PM
Asked and answered.
No you didn't you just compared her to someone else. Is she an interventionist or not?
Quote from: Ulick on August 26, 2016, 12:23:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 26, 2016, 12:20:48 PM
Asked and answered.
No you didn't you just compared her to someone else. Is she an interventionist or not?
Look I can understand your need to run away from some of the daftest claims I've ever seen on this board, but I have already said I am not playing your black or white loaded question game.
But I'll help you out.
Maybe english is the problem so I'll try maths.
On the scale of interventionism I would see it like this:
0 Interventionism < Pope Francis < Hillary Clinton < The Provisional IRA < Maximum Interventionism
We use comparisons all the time. They provide context, something you might want to consider, which is far more useful and of course reasonable, than your usual book of tricks.
Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?
Quote from: seafoid on August 26, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?
World poverty is at a historic low and is falling all the time. I am not saying it doesn't exist, obviously, nor that it shouldn't be much better than it is, but it is complete nonsense to say the situation is getting worse. We, the ordinary plebs, have never, ever had it better in our entire history. Easy answer populism will not help to close the gap. The revolutionaries alway simply replace the elites with themselves.
We need another better way of doing things.
Asking about Clinton doing anything about it is as absurd as asking will Trump do anything about it. But at least I balanced up the question.
Asking will Clinton do something about it is absurd. It implies one should vote against her on that basis.
Quote from: seafoid on August 26, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?
Yip.
She'll make it worse.
Quote from: muppet on August 26, 2016, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on August 26, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?
World poverty is at a historic low and is falling all the time. I am not saying it doesn't exist, obviously, nor that it shouldn't be much better than it is, but it is complete nonsense to say the situation is getting worse. We, the ordinary plebs, have never, ever had it better in our entire history. Easy answer populism will not help to close the gap. The revolutionaries alway simply replace the elites with themselves.
We need another better way of doing things.
Asking about Clinton doing anything about it is as absurd as asking will Trump do anything about it. But at least I balanced up the question.
Asking will Clinton do something about it is absurd. It implies one should vote against her on that basis.
Muppet
I don't understand where your grá for the Clintons comes from. Median income in the US is 10% lower than in 1975. Life expectancy for blue collar Americans is falling . That is a sign of social trauma. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have never been higher. The richest 1% of Americans own 42% of everything. Productivity is stagnant. Investment is decreasing. Ordinary people are not getting payrises. Things could be a lot better. Will Clinton drive the system into the wall or will she be a reforming president like McKinley and Roosevelt?
This well worn phrase about world poverty I dont buy into.
We need to look at what poverty is and how its measured. Presumably this phrase came from a measure of economic activity or to be more precise monetary exchange.
However in my anecdotal experience the worst poverty is actually in areas where it is very hard to live without money, if people in those societies do not have money they find it difficult to source the basics for living, Im thinking along the lines of large cities etc. However in areas where there is not alot of economic activity such as rural areas with strong social bonds people can get by without money by subsistence and exchange of goods and labour as opposed to actual money.
So with increased globalization, and urban expansion then of course world monetary poverty is falling as more and more people earn money in these economic centers, but are people really less poor... I beg to differ they may be a pay check away from going hungry or loosing a roof over their head whereas if they where living in a rural setting such drastic events would be much difficult to fall into.
Then there is the other way of looking at which I think is what seafoid is alluding to is.... are most people that are on the finical system better off or is it just inflation making it look like that? A good measure might be is the average persons slice of the total wealth generated increasing? Its probably another way of looking at wealth disparity, anyway I doubt if it is.